fiveguys_nearby

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and handles it well: it states that no nearby restaurants returns an empty list rather than an error, explains total_results/offset paging, and enumerates the returned fields. It doesn't discuss rate limits or auth, but nothing contradicts the internal annotations because there are none.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded and organized: purpose first, then return-shape, then paging, then edge-case. It is relatively long, but the detailed field list is justified because there is no output schema and the extra behavior details are useful for correct invocation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Because there is no output schema, the description must explain what the results look like, and it does. It lists the essential returned data, explains total_results/offset, and handles the empty-result case. For a five-parameter tool with no annotations, this is a complete and safe invocation story.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so latitude, longitude, radius, limit, and offset are already explained in the input schema. The description adds context around radium and offset but does not add substantive parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb-resource pair: find Five Guys restaurants near a coordinate. It further defines the resource as restaurants within a radius of a latitude/longitude, which clearly distinguishes this geo-search tool from sibling tools like fiveguys_search or fiveguys_directory.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need Five Guys restaurants around a coordinate, with radius and pagination semantics. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.